Demographics of China (demographic time bomb)

[kankan326]

You're absolutely wrong re the US.

United States Population Projections​

The population of the US continues to grow today, driven by a high level of immigration. The latest data from the Census Bureau shows that US population growth is running at between 0.7% and 0.9% per year. A 2015 Census Bureau Report suggests that growth will slow somewhat, and projects a 2060 population of 417 million, with the country crossing the 400 million threshold in 2051.

The United Nations projects a lower total, estimating a population of just over 400 million in 2060.

Bear in mind the US can always increase its population quota similar to the 2000-2005 period.

Compared to population decrease, population substitution is more dangerous

 

[Mista]

Even a worst case scenario (500 million) is more than enough.

500mil+ people of which 300mil+ are aged 65+. More than half of people on the streets will be the elderly.

Unless global dominance/influence is very important for you, it's not the population size that is concerning. Japan will do fine even with 100mil or 50mil people. It's the demographic composition. Declining number of taxpayers, increasing healthcare expenses, and increasing pension payout every year will inevitably bankrupt a country's finances if nothing else is done, like raising taxes or the retirement age.

 

[chinasun]

850,000 less in 2022. China has implemented family planning for 50 years. The United Nations predicts a reduction of more than 300 million people over the next 30 years. I hope the fertility rate will not be lower than that of South Korea.

 

[Corruptistan]

500mil+ people of which 300mil+ are aged 65+. More than half of people on the streets will be the elderly.

Unless global dominance/influence is very important for you, it's not the population size that is concerning. Japan will do fine even with 100mil or 50mil people. It's the demographic composition. Declining number of taxpayers, increasing healthcare expenses, and increasing pension payout every year will inevitably bankrupt a country's finances if nothing else is done, like raising taxes or the retirement age.

Yes, but people are forgetting that what was considered old 50 years ago will not be the case in 50-100 years time. 100 years ago most women gave birth before the age of 20. Now it is normal to have your first child when you have reached 30 or above in most developed nations of the world whether West or not West.

Some here were speaking about 2100 (in this thread). I suspect that 65 years in 2100 will be today's 35 years.

And once again, I think that people are severely underrating the gigantic impact that AI and robotics will have for humanity in say 10 years let alone 2050 or 2100. I suspect that having large/huge populations will be a disadvantage in many ways.

That and the ever growing life expectancy and better health of humans worldwide. More and more people are reaching the age of 100 in places like Japan and now it is a normal occurrence. 100 years ago it was unthinkable.

We need to rethink our place in this world given the rapid speed at which technology is developing. Rediscover it in other words.

The upcoming change will be larger than the change during the industrial age IMO.

 

[Flaming Sabre]

They will soon become another russia without reaching the quality of life russians had, young chinese are making themselves infertile doing tang ping and choosing sissy lifestyle, net immigration is out of china, because well, who doesnt like the life and comforts in the west, nobody like to immigrate to china because well, who likes to live in a concrete factory building making iphones for rest of their young lives.

The gifts from Mao and communism keep on giving.

1) 2022 China GDP$18.46b 12.97 thous

India GDP$3.25b 2.47 thous

Good luck
2) This is how the Chinese live

 

[大汉奸柳传志]

every time I browse those AI paintings Im like “Thank god I didn't choose art major” who knows what AI might be capable of or how many human jobs it will replace by the year 2100

USA is the only demographic ticking time bomb Im afraid. One thing we can learn from human history is that never expect a smooth transaction when a demographic group loses its dominant majority status

 

[Mista]

Yes, but people are forgetting that what was considered old 50 years ago will not be the case in 50-100 years time. 100 years ago most women gave birth before the age of 20. Now it is normal to have your first child when you have reached 30 or above in most developed nations of the world whether West or not West.

Some here were speaking about 2100 (in this thread). I suspect that 65 years in 2100 will be today's 35 years.

And once again, I think that people are severely underrating the gigantic impact that AI and robotics will have for humanity in say 10 years let alone 2050 or 2100. I suspect that having large/huge populations will be a disadvantage in many ways.

That and the ever growing life expectancy and better health of humans worldwide. More and more people are reaching the age of 100 in places like Japan and now it is a normal occurrence. 100 years ago it was unthinkable.

We need to rethink our place in this world given the rapid speed at which technology is developing. Rediscover it in other words.

The upcoming change will be larger than the change during the industrial age IMO.

I too think we are heading towards that direction, but it's a huge assumption with a lot of unknown variables.

It's an uncomfortable fact that our vitality and cognitive function will go down as we age. Advancement in medicine and biotechnology may help us delay the inevitable, but these will cost money as well and at the end of the day we still have to face up to aging.

 

[Flaming Sabre]

The UN forecasts that China's population will decline from 1.426 billion this year to 1.313 billion by 2050 and below 800 million by 2100.

1) The richer the material life of the developed world, the lower the idea of getting married and having children because there are so many choices in life. China is moving from the middle class to the ranks of the developed world and it is inevitable that the fertility rate will gradually go down, the US and Europe have a large immigration policy so they don't care about the population problem.

2) The more important reason for China's low fertility rate is dollar inflation, the prices of foreign commodities continue to increase, but China needs to maintain low prices internally to ensure the basic needs of its people, instead of taking responsibility for this loss, the state raises housing prices and allows high house price tax rates to make up for the loss, resulting in young Chinese being unable to afford housing and more reluctant to get married and have children.

These two points are just the main reasons. Most Chinese believe that the Chinese government has overdrawn young Chinese people for thirty years with high house prices, trading these economic and future fertility rates for military and technological development, which is more like a gamble, all worth the effort if China can manage to rise quickly and escape the middle class trap.

 

[Corruptistan]

I too think we are heading towards that direction, but it's a huge assumption with a lot of unknown variables.

It's an uncomfortable fact that our vitality and cognitive function will go down as we age. Advancement in medicine and biotechnology may help us delay the inevitable, but these will cost money as well and at the end of the day we still have to face up to aging.

Well, that direction is a fact, not an assumption. Look at how many jobs that most people used to have 100 + years ago have gone extinct. Robotics and AI is going to hugely impact every single walk of life that we can think of. Eventually that will happen given the speed of technological advancement.

Huge industries manned by humans today will in the future become completely redundant.

Heck, I even expect human cloning to be a thing eventually, making birth rates redundant as well. Or some kind of cyborg - fusion of robotics/AI and humans.

I would not rule out a cure for old age as well which is a disease like any other but something that we have come to accept anyway as an integral part of life.

Just think how much the world has changed in the past 100 years and consider that the yearly technological advancement from say 1953 to 1954, is much smaller than the current day or what it will be in 30-50 years time let alone 100 years time.

 

[Get Ya Wig Split]

The UN is too optimistic. The UN previously predicted that China's population will start falling in 2031-32, but it already started falling in 2022.

View attachment 918904

Time-Plot (Single) | Line Chart | Data Portal

Display the data table with indicators in rows (use Display option to customize pivot)

population.un.org

It assumes that China's TFR will keep on increasing throughout this century when there is no evidence to support this. In fact, if you look at the experience of other East Asian developed countries, China's TFR will continue to face a downward pressure as China continues to develop and urbanize.

Even Chinese demographers also think the UN is too optimistic.

æ¢å»ºç« ã€ä»»æ³½å¹³ç‰ï¼šä¸å›½äººå£é¢„测报告2021版

æ¢å»ºç« ã€ä»»æ³½å¹³ç‰ï¼šä¸å›½äººå£é¢„测报告2021版

finance.sina.com.cn

China's TFR already fell to 1.1 in 2021. The TFR in urban China has fell to 0.86. China would be lucky if their TFR doesn't continue to fall to 0.78 like South Korea as it continues to develop and urbanize their remaining rural population.

View attachment 918905

http://www.stats.gov.cn/tjsj/pcsj/rkpc/5rp/html/l0605a.htm

Here's the projection from Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences:

China’s population is about to shrink for the first time since the great famine struck 60 years ago. Here’s what it means for the world

For the first time in 60 years, China's population is on track to decline. Sustained decreases will have an impact beyond just China's borders.

www.weforum.org

Terrifying to be honest. @beijingwalker is this true? Less than 600 million people by 2100? In comparison, US population will grow to almost 450-500 million by 2100.

 

[VCheng]

U.S. birth rates drop as women wait to have babies

The latest government figures show a sharp decline in U.S. fertility in recent years.

www.cbsnews.com

1.3 crikey…



2015? Your birth rate stands at 1.3.

Not to take this thread off topic, but at least let me offer a glimpse of a comparison of the changes relative to China's, to stay relevant to the topic:

This is from the report you linked, where the real finding is the timing of births, and not to any demographic instability:

A fertility rate of 1.6 is not exactly a "crikey" moment, considering its long term stability, and in view of the rising population overall, with data up to 2020 below. The latest dip is short term, and coincides with economic cycles and Covid. The recent changes will be short lived and are not going to affect the long term demographics significantly.

The magic ingredient is immigration, which is a benefit China has denied itself due to its nature of being a closed xenophobic authoritarian society. Hence the demographic troubles it is facing over the remainder of this century, at least.

 

[waz]

Not to take this thread off topic, but at least let me offer a glimpse of a comparison of the changes relative to China's, to stay relevant to the topic:

This is from the report you linked, where the real finding is the timing of births, and not to any demographic instability:

View attachment 918948

A fertility rate of 1.6 is not exactly a "crikey" moment, considering its long term stability, and in view of the rising population overall, with data up to 2020 below. The latest dip is short term, and coincides with economic cycles and Covid. The recent changes will be short lived and are not going to affect the long term demographics significantly.

View attachment 918950

View attachment 918951

The magic ingredient is immigration, which is a benefit China has denied itself due to its nature of being a closed xenophobic authoritarian society. Hence the demographic troubles it is facing over the remainder of this century, at least.

Without going into US demographics too much the trend is set to continue i.e. women not choosing to or to delay in having children. Also since the pandemic things have changed and don't seem to be going back to the original trends. The change in older women giving birth more also correlates with mental and other health conditions in children.
Also the birth rate is 1.3 not 1.6 as you stated.

 

[VCheng]

Without going into US demographics too much the trend is set to continue i.e. women not choosing to or to delay in having children. Also since the pandemic things have changed and don't seem to be going back to the original trends. The change in older women giving birth more also correlates with mental and other health conditions in children.
Also the birth rate is 1.3 not 1.6 as you stated.

We can take this discussion to its own thread, but I have posted the correct data. That 1.3 figure comes from a very specific study designed to look at the timing. Covid was only three years ago, and the effects are going to take a few years to resolve. USA will likely head into a recession over the next two years, and that will slow down recovery of the rate for a bit longer as well. But the magic ingredient can be loosened or tightened to fine tune the overall buffer as needed. No worries.

 

[Mista]

Your birth rate stands at 1.3.

Also the birth rate is 1.3 not 1.6 as you stated.

There is a difference between birth rate and total fertility rate. The article you shared cited a report which uses a crude measure without adjusting for age-specific population.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr179.pdf

Here's the formula for TFR:

How is the Total Fertility Rate calculated?

The Total Fertility Rate (TFR) is a standard demographic indicator used internationally to estimate the average number of children that...

www.population.gov.sg

Total Fertility Rate

www.singstat.gov.sg

Difference:

Measuring Fertility in the United States — Penn Wharton Budget Model

The U.S. population’s total fertility rate is now approximately 1.7 births per female, which is below the replacement rate of 2.1 that is required for the U.S. population not to shrink without increases in immigration. Women are delaying motherhood, from the 2006 average age range of 25 to 29 to the

budgetmodel.wharton.upenn.edu

The US's TFR is around 1.6 in 2020, which is also below the replacement rate of 2.1.

Fertility Rate, Total for the United States

Graph and download economic data for Fertility Rate, Total for the United States (SPDYNTFRTINUSA) from 1960 to 2021 about fertility, rate, and USA.

fred.stlouisfed.org

 

[Sapei]

Some members are pointing towards AI and robotics being a fix to the issue. This is a wrong understanding of what an economy is.

An economy is fundamentally consumption and domestic consumption is the most important pillar. Most of China's growth comes from rapidly growing domestic consumption. As population decreases in China, the economy will be in major trouble and consumption will decrease accordingly with a lag. Robots do not consume anyting. Many economist doubt that China with this demographic development ever will overtake the US as the world's largest economy (nominal GDP).

China has for a decade tried to change this trend to no avail. 1 child policy is now 3 child policy with monetary incentives. However, the TFR is in free fall. China's option (like the west) is to open up for immigration. I know they are already taking workers in from Myanmar. In the future, Millions of Pakistanis, North Koreans, Russians etc. could settle in China.